According to Canadian Darryl Wolk McCain should pick the current Secretary of State Rice. He argues:

McCain is a maverick and often defies his own party, but after gaining some ground at the recent faith discussions, picking (Tom) Ridge or (Joe) Lieberman could be very risky. I would say odds are increasing for Huckabee or a candidate like Gingrich who are more likely to be accepted by the base. I still strongly think McCain's best option is Ms. Rice.

In this term's hotly contested elections, Wolk explains:

McCain could be in a strong position to name a quality VP choice and go into the Republican convention with strong momentum leading into what will be the crunch time of this campaign. Despite the unpopularity of the Republican Party, McCain has hung in there in terms of polls against “the biggest celebrity in the world”. The fact that he is close to the margin of error and still very competitive in swing states means that this presidential race is still too close to call.

Wolk also lists all the likely candidates, who include Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, Sarah Palin, Joe Lieberman, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Tom Ridge, to name a few.

Weighing Rice's cons and pros, the blogger says:

Pro - I would argue the strongest chance for a female President in the near future. Seen as a moderate within the Bush administration. Great credentials and experience in foreign affairs. Young and African American. Probably the highest profile pick available.
Con - Tarnished by George W. Bush and his record. Seen as a failure by some as Secretary of State.

A Political Glimpse from Ireland announces that McCain has already selected Governor Romney as his running mate. The blogger notes:

I personally don’t think this is a bad choice considering Senator Obama is favored in most polls for handling the economy better than Senator McCain. A few frequent commentors on this blog have argued whether VP’s actually make the difference in an election however I think it comes down to perception… if people believe a VP Romney will be right there by McCain side’s advocating economic policies to fix the current economic recession then maybe McCain is the right person to vote for?

In 1995, two young Puerto Rican men Anthony Rosario and Hilton Vega were shot in the back and killed by two New York City detectives in the Bronx. Evidence showed that when they were killed, they were laying face down on the floor and an independent autopsy revealed that Rosario was shot fourteen times in the back and Vega was shot eight times in the back.

"One of the detectives, was Rudy Giuliani’s former bodyguard Patrick Brosnan. So what did Giuliani do? First, he had the audacity to call the police officers to commend them on their actions and then when Anthony Rosario’s mother Margarita called in to his radio show, Rudy talked over her, insisting that gunfire was exchanged and that her son had a criminal record. Both of these statements were lies. Giuliani also told the dead man's mother that perhaps she should look at her parenting skills to help explain why her son died. Is this the kind of person we want as president?"

Well thankfully we don't have to worry about him as president, but if John McCain were to choose Rudy as his running mate and if anything happened to McCain, well then we would have to deal with King Rudy. And yet, Giuliani's name is being thrown around alot, perhaps more times than he can say 9-11 in a single breath.

Post extendido - Leer más 'The Scariest Possibility Ever? McCain and Giuliani on One Ticket?'...

Among such sites is Who the World Wants, which aims polls non-Americans, giving them the choice between selecting Republican Party candidate John McCain or Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama.

“This website is intended to finding out who the world outside the United States of America wants as a President for your country. Please, if you are a United States Citizen, DO NOT VOTE (you get to vote for real),” says the announcement on the site.

So far, the results show Obama as a global favourite, with 1,032 votes in his favour, against McCain's 685 global fans.

Another site sharing a similar idea is Who Would the World Elect? On this site, Republican Ron Paul is the forerunner, with close to 67,000 votes from around the world. Obama is a far second with 21,000 votes while former Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton is a third, with around 6,800 votes. The site, which has so far seen 118,332 votes cast, also has a listing of where the votes came from, and for whom.

From Afghanistan, for instance, eight people have had their say as follows:

3 votes for Ron Paul
3 votes for Hillary Clinton
2 votes for Barack Obama

Australia too favours Ron Paul, with 1,267 votes for him. The other results are as follows:

710 votes for Barack Obama
176 votes for Hillary Clinton
97 votes for Dennis Kucinich
72 votes for Mike Gravel
28 votes for John Edwards
27 votes for Rudy Giuliani
13 votes for John McCain
11 votes for Fred Thompson
8 votes for Mitt Romney
5 votes for Chris Dodd
4 votes for Joe Biden
4 votes for Mike Huckabee
4 votes for Bill Richardson
3 votes for Sam Brownback
3 votes for Tom Tancredo
2 votes for Duncan Hunter
2 votes for Ralph Nader

For a full listing of how people in other countries have voted, click here.

What if we all voted? is yet another site, operating on the same principle. The site describes itself as:

a simple poll* of who the world would vote for in the upcoming US presidential election… if they could.

Obama leads the polls on this site and the full results can be found here.

Obama only made one campaign stop in West Virginia, instead concentrating on November’s general election against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. However, the size of Clinton’s victory led some analysts to believe that the her campaign for the Democratic nomination is far from finished. “This race isn't over yet. Neither of us has the total delegates it takes to win,” Clinton told supporters. “I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign until everyone has had a chance to make their voices heard.”

MSNBC affirms that Obama has 1,880 delegates while Clinton's has earned 1,718, with six more delegates to be awarded in West Virginia. With five state primaries remaining before June 3, Obama needs 145 delegates to reach the 2,025 line needed to clinch the nomination. Stop me if you’ve heard this before: Thus, both candidates must rely on the support of more than 800 Superdelegates – party insiders and elected officials – to secure the Democratic nomination. It is believed Obama has a lead in Superdelegates.

It was just one week ago that it seemed Obama’s nomination was all but a foregone conclusion. After West Virginia, however, bloggers, like most others, are torn on what Clinton’s victory means to the future of the Democratic nomination. According to the Gay Patriot, “the internet home for the American gay conservative,” Clinton’s victory should mean a lot for Democrats: Just because political pundits claim an Obama candidacy doesn’t mean it to be true. On the other hand, Mash from Bangladesh but living in the U.S., points out in Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying that voter turnout in West Virginia was much lower than expected, thus lessening the blow of Clinton’s victory. The EU-Post predicts Clinton’s large victory should be a worrying sign for Obama, who still cannot attract blue-collar voters and the support of lower-income Americans.

Andrew Malcolm, blogging at the Los Angeles Times, reminds us that the Republican race is still ongoing, even though McCain is assured the nomination. The big loser in West Virginia was Ron Paul, McCain’s last remaining Republican challenger, who garnered only five percent of the vote. He was beaten by Mike Huckabee, who pulled out of the race weeks ago. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, two well-funded Republicans no longer campaigning for President, nearly beat Paul.

Looking over national polling data, Jeff Weintraub, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and University of Haifa in Israel, points out that Clinton is more popular among Jewish voters than Obama; however, the Illinois Senator outpolls Republican John McCain.

For some bloggers, calls continue for Clinton to drop out of the race in show of unity. In Contextual Musings, David, a Arab-American academic with “Eurocentric yet Asian inspired tendencies,” compares Clinton’s victory speech to Bush’s attempt after the 2000 presidential election to claim a mandate when he lost the popular and the Supreme Court handed him a victory. In Politics Across the Pond, Crain calls on Clinton fans to united behind Obama and to focus on John McCain and the November election.

The View from the Other Side, a South African living in Silicon Valley, California, takes conservative Christians to task for ignoring the issues and their “despicable” and “unchristian” attacks on Obama.

Looking forward, Joe Joseph from The Times in London, declares that if Obama is beaten by McCain this fall, Hillary should be a frontrunner for 2012, when she’ll be 64. Jonathan Steele in Comment is Free in the Guardian argues that Obama’s ideas about the Middle East are simply “business as usual” to really provide the revolution in U.S. foreign policy he’s promised. The Angry African, who’s been through a real electoral revolution in South Africa, reminds doom saying Americans that come November it won’t be the end of the world, no matter who wins the U.S. Presidency.

Today the odds* are:

* Barack Obama 68%
* John McCain 29%
* Hillary Clinton 3%

What a dramatic change. Not being a US citizen I have not delved into the nitty gritty of the differences in policy, but have watched with interest the bigger picture unfold. As I have browsed the internet and particular the blogosphere it has struck me how much support there is for Obama. I can only remember one blogger who has said they will be voting for Hillary, I have lost count how many have said they are backing Obama (even some non US citizens). Videos such as this and this (hat tip: Sarah) are everywhere. Yet when I try to find similar videos for McCain or Clinton, I find it so much more difficult.

While I try not to be swept along with the almost evangelical tide that seems to be accompanying Obama’s campaign, I do think it is amazing to see the hope for, and belief people have in this one man.

When I turn back to UK politics and look at the possible options for the next prime minister, it certainly doesn’t fill me with the same emotions. You have dour Gordon Brown who, as co-driver for 10 years and now driver, is anything but change. Then there is the alternative of David Cameron, while perhaps being more palatable, is hardly the revolutionist to inspire an entire nation to bring about change.

Of course I wonder how much of Obama’s words will become action, but I certainly hope he gets the chance to show it.

* Implied odds taken from the best odds available (exc. betting exchanges), according to oddschecker.com

Last June, I remember being in a car in Johannesburg, driving from point A to point B. There were four of us, from four different countries, two Africans two non-Africans. From a discussion on the global economic climate, we segued into a discussion about who could would might be the next US President. Hillary Clinton got a fair amount of airtime. We tossed pluses and minuses back and forth. Rudi Giulliani also came under scrutiny. I attempted to insert Barack Obama into the conversation. Everybody laughed. I mean, chortled. Nobody else in the car thought he was worth considering.

In the next couple of weeks, at least three of us will get together again. I can’t wait.

Also, I’m ‘up to here’ with Kenya. Enough. I’m off to bury my head in the sand. DO NOT DISTURB.

Just one more thing: ahem, has anyone else noticed that drought has checked in? Mom told me some weeks ago the harvest was very poor this year, and that set out the first warning bells for me. But of course there's plenty of news jostling for mind space so I stashed that away absentmindedly. Then yesterday, there were cattle being herded along Mbagathi Way. That's usually a sign that there's trouble in the land.

It's my personal belief that while having multiple candidates to choose from is a sign of a healthy democracy in theory, in practice it can lead to some of the worst and lowest populist outcomes that a democratic system can generate. When the average voter is faced by a slather of candidates they will either be turned off by the complexity of it all and not vote, or be motivated to vote by single hot-button issues. Obviously the second problem will occur in any race, but I feel that it is more pronounced and worrying in a multi-candidate field. For example, Mike Huckabee carried Iowa largely on the morals platform, Hillary Clinton winning New Hampshire largely because of females who sympathised with her, and Barrack Obama taking the goods in South Carolina because he is an African American (ironically, in a different sense of the word to the one usually used).

Some may argue that this is good for democracy in that it stimulates the public to back its horse and galvinises those who otherwise would not vote. However to vote in a democracy is an act of sovereign power, and one that should not be encouraged simply for its own sake. What I mean by all this is that I am worried that, in a splintered field of candidates without a clear frontrunner, the true issues of substance such as policy and mettle will be lost in a sea of 10 second sound bites and hot-button issues.

Now the American public has a much better chance to seriously scrutinise the remaining four presidential pretenders and make an informed decision. While I am sad to see some candidates go, especially someone like John Edwards who was so passionate about social justice, I would prefer the American people to seriously consider four candidates than roll dice to decide between eight.

And my thoughts on the four remaining candidates? I don't think I really have any credentials to be a pundit apart from reading the papers, but then again I don't particularly think that many actual pundits have strong credentials to do their jobs anyway. That being so I might as well start with the negative side of things.

With Barrack Obama I'm worried that if he gets elected on a centre-left platform and a cult-personality following he may go the same way as Tony Blair in the UK once tough decisions have to be made. Blair was also touted as the ‘healer' when he came to power in 1997, loved by the majority. He left in 2007 in a storm of controversy and shunned by a public amongst whom ‘Blair-hating' had become a national pasttime. Obviously the President has more far reaching powers than the Prime Minister, but if Obama is running on a platform of unity that may crumble once substantive decisions have to be made. If not, and if he attempts to consistently tow his populist line he may not have the strength or mandate to make tough decisions that need to be made.

Which brings us to the ‘hard' candidate, John McCain. Personally I like McCain – he has the bearing of a leader and a proven tenacity and resilience that none of the other candidates have. Additionally he has never been the front runner until he was propelled to that position by the voting public, something I find to be a true vindication of his campaign. That being said however, there are three main concerns with McCain: firstly, his age. The guy's 71, and is old enough to be Barrack Obama's father. Will he really be able to put up with the constant strain of the modern US presidency and yet be able to keep a rein on his temper (his second main problem)? Finally, McCain has only been cautiously accepted by the Republican conservative wing, and he is still yet to win over the ultra-conservatives. If these king makers are so hard to get on board, will McCain have the strength to pull through difficult times without them (or even against them)?

Another candidate for whom opposition seems to be a defining characteristic is Hillary Clinton. She is clearly a very smart, capable woman who for too long has been hidden in the shadow of her charismatic husband. But where Barrack is strong, she is weak: can a woman who 47 per cent of Americans say they won't vote for lead the country? Will Clinton bashing be the successor of Bush bashing? With the current economic downturn and geopolitical turmoil, America needs to have a strong leader (which Hillary would certainly be), but also a leader who can unite to lead.

Which brings us to the wildcard Mitt Romney. To me he is the candidate that doesn't fit neatly into any of the boxes; he is a true big-business economic conservative, but he is yet to be fully embraced by the Republican conservative core. He is also trying to grab some of the ‘morals' vote with his strong family values, but many of the ‘values' voters will be turned off (fairly or unfairly) by his equally strong Mormon faith. And despite the amount of money he is pumping in he is still trailing behind a man whose campaign was declared dead not a few weeks ago. Will the pieces of the puzzle come together for Romney in time?

To a cautious person like myself, the familiarity of McCain and Clinton is appealing. But then again I'm circumspect enough to know that the world is changing rapidly, and that my gut instinct is not always right. I personally like Obama and I agree that his message resonates with me, but I'm still not sold on him until I see something more substantive (which is not to say there isn't any substance). Romney remains the unknown quantity, and the candidate on whom I have the least to say. My views haven't crystallised yet, and probably won't until the two parties have elected their candidate. But whatever the case, I can only hope that from now on the discussion will move to issues of substance instead of symbolism.

Before we wade into the political waters, let’s stay with reality for a second. The first issue at hand: America, what have you done for us? That’s the question posed by John M at Africa News when he remarked on President George Bush’s planned trip to five African countries.

The only thing I can say about Bush and his administration’s perception of Africa is that they have been totally indifferent to African issues.

Contrary to Clinton who visited the continent on many occasions and still goes there, Bush saw Africa as another market. While defining his diplomatic ties with Africa he said that they would be guided by the “No aid but trade” principle.

Coming to Africa now brings nothing at all. Anyway, he will be away next January and his trips and eventual promises will belong to the past.

Bush’s legacy on Africa (at least through the eyes of U.S. commentators) has been so-so to pretty good. However, when Bush is compared to Bill Clinton, Richard Mawanda Mufumbya in African Path, the current resident of the White House falls far short.

The Clinton era was synonymous with scandals but that’s not so big news at least in Africa where concubinism is more of a trait. We still agree to having a soft spot for the Clintons with all the goodwill they ushered in when for the first time the American president in history managed to have spent some time in our villages and seen shaking hands with the remotest of filthy poor citizens donning rags. Clinton managed to visit villages I confess I didn’t know existed in this tiny east African country.

Mawanda Mufumbya remarks that with Bill Clinton’s continued popularity in Africa, it's a little ironic that many Africans are not supporting Hillary Clinton. Rather, they are going for a Barack Obama Presidency not just for selfish reasons of a shared heritage, but with the hope they have in him to build a better relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Again from African Path:

Whether relationships have been in Africa or Asia name it, they have been mostly thorny and characterized with biasness propping up dictatorial regimes in Africa in exchange with mineral contracts to American countries. They have gone ahead sometimes with military hardware donations to Governments to suppress opposition and if this has been the Republican dominated foreign policy, its bound to re-open more wounds abroad if they are elected again.

Obama has been straight forward in policy at least even if his opponents blow it out of proportion as rhetorical but its better to have hope than wait for wrath of non caring Republican American presidents in the oval office. We need dialogue in the world today than flexing and if situations allow we need to talk straight with our detractors not to go round problems but take them head on. Obama is not only attractive a choice for being Black, learned, humble background but his works with inner city disadvantaged communities appeals to multitudes who can connect what he has managed in a few years to his message of hope which seems more likely to become reality than ever.

Trying to understand Obamamania certainly presents a dilemma. Many commentators inside and outside the United States cannot quite put a finger on his success. Some call it his iconographic image; others think it’s his unique background and upbringing; others still claim that his message hits home at the right time. Over at the Afropolitan Network, the reason is much simpler: Obama has a well organized campaign that has taken the risk of tailoring his message to the fickle youth vote.

From Beverly Lwenya at the Afropolitan Network:

He is the smartest (he hasn't made too many gaffes), most organized (his campaign is almost flawless in grassroots organizing from ground up), most authentic (listen to his non-speeches) and most inspiring (carrying youth vote and new voters handily) candidate. If this is lost on you then you are not paying attention. I believe it was Tim Russet on MSNBC who noted that if November does end up being an Obama V McCain election, it will be the widest gap in age between candidates in American presidential history. If there was a case to be made that this election was a grand entrance for eldest of the Generation Xers then this is it. Meanwhile, us Millennials are Ferrari now at a yellow light “Waiting for the World to Change”. I don’t think we’ll be sleeping in this time.

But Andrew LaGrange warns Obama supporters not to start buying fancy new dinner clothes for the Inauguration Party in January 2009. For Obama still has to defeat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Even though the votes are starting to fall his way, Hillary Clinton can still count on some support of Superdelegates, controversial program to give elected officials and high ranking party members control of up to 40 per cent of the awarded delegates necessary to clinch the nomination.

From Andrew LaGrange:

So the Democrats soldier on, despite it looking increasingly like the centre of the party, and in the final analysis, the majority of the Democratic Party want Barack Obama to be presidential nominee. Why? Because Hilary and the Clinton Vote Getting machine still believe they will be able to swing enough super-delegates before the convention. Hillary has to now be hoping, in a George W. Bush-ian sense, that the Elders of her party (in his case the Elders of the Judiciary : The Supreme Court) will catch her final Hail Mary pass, and give her the nomination, despite it looking increasingly that Obama will be the popular candidate.

Have the Democratic Party learnt nothing from the posturing of 2000? You can’t say you believe in the populist vote when it suits you, and then turn around and say you don’t believe in it when it doesn’t. Basically the problem for the Democrats will be that Hillary doesn’t know when she is beaten… and with Obama sweeping the Potomac primaries, it’s increasingly looking like she has been.

Switching gears for a second, Sheyi Oriade, writing in Nigerians in America, wonders why it has taken so long for either a black man or a woman to stand for the highest office of the United States.

As much as I find current political developments in America exciting and encouraging, I also find it perplexing that it has taken this long to get to the point where either a black man or a white woman has a realistic shot at winning the presidential nomination of a major political party. For as far as I am aware, there have been black people in America since 1619, and I imagine white women for even longer. So I find it confounding and difficult to compute in my mind, particularly, against the background of the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the founding of the United States, why it has taken this long.

A novel way to compare and contrast the personality of each candidate is to take a tour through their respective websites. That’s exactly what freelance website designer Mark Forrester did with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Obama’s website is clean and clutter free. It makes use of a fresh blue color palette that doesn’t scream “Oh, say! can you see by the dawn’s early light…“. The image of Obama peering into the distance behind his logo is somewhat cheesy though.

Mark found Obama’s site unhurried and not too busy. It had well defined menu items, and pretty easy navigation to all the social media spaces, which highlights the importance of Obama’s campaign in cyberspace.

Hillary Clinton’s website has gone for a different approach. Her website to me screams “Oh, say! can you see by the dawn’s early light…“. The colours are stereotypically American and I immediately think the site looks like it belongs to a politician who is looking for votes. At the same time though it boasts confidence, the large headers and capital letters show Clinton is bold and not scared of saying I’ll fight you for the votes, whilst the main photo of her, with a big smile on her face, warms up her appearance.

Clinton’s site requires a bit less scrolling than Obama’s and the social media links are far more evident. On the negative side, she does utilize a “5 Things You Can Do” box that feels a little bossy.

In concluding I think Obama’s website gets my vote, its appearance portrays Obama as somewhat of a visionary, it’s more quietly intriguing and less in my face.

As Jillian York pointed out in her recent Voices Without Votes post regarding how the Moroccan blogosphere views the U.S. election, the Republican race also fails to hold much interest among Africans south of the Sahara. One reason for that is the race has been whittled down to a one-man show: John McCain. It will be McCain running in November for the Republicans, regardless of true “conservative” worries about him, writes Andrew LaGrange:

The Republicans have unified behind McCain, never mind what the conservatives say, “they will vote for McCain on election day simply to ensure a Republican president, Ann Coulter be damned.”

But from a conservative point of view, Bibilo Polit admits that when a good conservative candidate is found, the spin doctors in the media change the rules of the debate.

Being South African, I am glad I do not have to choose among the GOP front runners. Mitt Romney, like Guiliani (before he dropped out), is a democrat in republican clothes; John McCain is weak on illegal immigrants and Pastor Huckabee is big on BIG government. If the conservatives, especially those who believe that the constitution should be upheld, then they would have stood behind Ron Paul.

But, then, there are so many spin doctors in the American media, they would try to make out that Romney is a “real” conservative and Hillary Clinton is close to being the next mother Theresa.

Finally, from Ray Hartley, the Editor of the Times, the U.S. presidential race does show a newfound health of the American electoral system.

South Africans are fond of mocking US politics and the money it takes to campaign for office in that country.

But we would learn from the transparency of the nomination process, its involvement of ordinary people and the grilling candidates have had to endure.

]]> http://voiceswithoutvotes.org/2008/02/14/africa-will-hillary-ever-be-as-popular-as-bill-clinton/feed/